Where is your proof that consumers do not want to outsource. From the posts I have read on here hardly any ask for recommendations of genuine American sites or genuine UK sites, most just want to know which sites will provide quality essays, deliver on time, be reasonably priced etc.

From what I have read (and I have no axe to grind as I don't work for any company) most of the students on here don't seem to be bothered where their writer is based so long as they get what they pay for and in the vast majority of recent posts they want to submit the work as their own.

Maybe we could start a thread to find out how many would not use a site if they knew where the site was based and the reason why they would avoid sites on the basis of location.

Of course I have no problem with proofreading and neither would any university as proofrerading is only checking someone else's work for grammatical errors and punctuation. Proofreading is not in the least bit concerned with checking the actual content. With proofreading the student has done all their own research and written it in their own words.


online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_studies/Imri/J i scpas/site/adv_study_ref.asp

This links to the study mentioned above by the JISC

If you care to go further into the Edinburgh website you will note that they use the JISC software for plaigarism detection

aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/Plagiarism/Intro.htm


Although there are links to american sites on plagairism there is definetely a different attitude taken towards the use of essay writing sites in the UK then there is in America.

Many of the universities in the UK have recently started giving talks to students on a regular basis concerning plagairism and what kind of material would be considered to be plagairised. This is because they have realised that the university guidelines are often not specific enough in explaining non accepted material.

When I did my first degree quite some time ago we were allowed to use lecture notes without citing these as a source but now even these have to be cited, along with ideas submitted by another student.

At the end of the day I am neither condemning nor condoning the use of such sites. I am merely exploring the attitudes of universities in the Uk and overseas towards the use of these sites and analysing how each of these institutes would regard such usage.

Lavinia I believe you have stated once before that you only write for american students (from some of your threads I have read) therefore obviously students will have cited your research in their work as is allowed in the US. My point is that so far my research has shown that in the UK the universities will not allow a student to cite an essay writing site as a source of research. This information comes not only from internet research but also a questionaire that I compiled for use in my thesis which I sent to all 106 universities in the UK. I am still waiting for some of these to be returned but to date all have stated the same in regard to the use of essay writing sites.

Obviously as I am using this data for my thesis I cannot publish the questionaire on here. Once my research has been completed and submitted I will be able to give you a definitive answer as to the percentages of universities that MIGHT allow use of an essay writing site in UK (so far that percentage is zero from the sample of questionaires that have been returned).

There is obviously little point in submitting such a questionaire to US universities as they clearly allow such usage. My comparison in my thesis will be with other countries and the UK to show that there is a global difference in the usage of such sites. I am not suggesting that the UK approach should be adopted universally I am merely exploring the use of such sites from a UK perspective, which of course has led to a discussion on the classification on plagiarism.

Those sites do recommend students to read from the below site

jiscpas.ac.uk/documents/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20FAQ.pdf

which is clearly against the use of essay writing sites as sources.

In the UK if you were to cite an essay writing company as a source questions would be asked as to the use made of this source especially as the essay itself has to be specifically ordered and is not available to view by anyone but the student who bought it. Any references used have to be verifiable by the examining body in the UK.

Will respond to rest of your post later am having to work overtime today

There are no laws banning the use of essay writing sites, these are the rules set by all the universities. Unlike in the US the only acceptable research that can be used for essays is books, articles and internet accessed websites (this does not include essay writing sites, but does include home office websites and other such agencies).


I am at present still compiling my research on this area. This is probably more of a problem in the UK then in the US as obviously in the US students are entitled to use custom written papers within their essays, whereas in the UK the universities regard this as plagairism.


If students are only supposed to be using essays as inspiration for their own work they are still likely to pay for that inspiration, after all that is why they buy text books or get library books for their work.


Students can get library books for free in the UK but the book selling industry is not affected by the fact that the books are available for free. I once needed a specific book for the course I was doing and as it was a new issue was having difficulty finding a copy in the library. I went and asked one of the staff there and they kindly ordered the book (which they paid for) and then lent the book to me (hence saving me £40).

At present the government in UK are examining the problem of students using essay writing sites in the light of the problem last year where a relatively high number of 6th form students failed as a result of using these sites rather than doing the research themselves. They are considering putting more emphasis on exams as they can control the amount of cheating easier if the student has to do the work in an exam room situation.

As I said above I guess this is more a UK problem as students in the UK are not allowed to cite essay writing companies as sources for their work as it is against the universities regulations. If you access any UK university website and look at what they regard as plagairism you will note that all the universities in UK ban the use of essay writing sites in any way shape or form.

what harm would there be in the companies making the essays available either on the web or to the universities if the students are not allowed to use them as their own work. Surely if these essays are being quoted by the students and properly sourced it does not matter if they are widely available for other students and universities to be able to access them.

In the UK no usage of essay writing sites is allowed by the students not even if they quote the site. How do students in America reference the work they have obtained from the essay writing companies? Surely unless the student knows the identity of the writer they cannot give credit to the author for their input.

English companies do this as well (so my research informs me) However, unless the company is going to make their work available to all universities in their locality there is only limited ways in which the university might realise that this is not the students own work if they decide to submit it as their own despite the warning.

Do you consider that because a warning was given that the company should be absolved of liability if the student ignores this and submits the work as their own or shouldn't the company have a moral obligation and legal obligation to make their work available to the universities to ensure a student cannot submit the essay in this way?

Muntazir

I have read your profile on essaybay and see that you have bid on all manner of subjects. You claim to be knowledgeable in many areas and offer to write for students of all nationalities. Do you really feel you are able to deliver quality work on all the areas you bid on?

This is actually kind of a trick question since I have read one of your essays on criminal law in the UK and have not had such a good laugh in ages.

Personally I think you should stick to subjects that you know something about instead of desperately agreeing to write any item requested. You obviously are clueless on UK law yet you constantly bid on these kinds of essays on essaybay- do you not think this is ripping the customer off if you really aren't up to writing on such topics.

Thought I would post the above so as to warn UK law students not to employ the above writer for law essays unless they want to use the essay as an example of how not to write a good essay.

(I wasn't the customer who bought the essay but do know the guy who did who then emailed it to me to brighten a dull day in the office. the essay has pride of place in the office as it makes such a nonsense of UK law on liability for murder )

You stated as above 'quote me where I claimed to have knowledge' Exactly my point I NEVER CLAIMED THAT YOU HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE I said I was highlighting your lack of knowledge in this area this does not mean that you CLAIMED to have knowledge in the first place. This means that the knowledge was absent 'ab initio' .

I have supported all of my points on this matter throughout. You asserted that the images showed genitalia, you did not say they showed skin. I have proven that the genitalia claim is utter hogwash. You were trying to make these out to be obscene when they clearly are not form the point of view of the authorities in the UK that would take action if they were.

I have told you where I work and have proven that there has been no contact with the police or the IWF (a fact you don't deny- you would like pretty silly if you tried to deny this since I would know about the report as soon as it was made)

Its time for once that you admit that you bit off more than you can chew on this issue as you have actually encountered someone who can disprove your assertions as they work in this field.

You accuse me of misquoting and then go and do it yourself.

I did not say that you claim to have knowledge of UK legislation I said I was highlighting your lack of such knowledge which you obviously do not disagree with.

Please quote me where I supposedly said that you were claiming knowledge of UK legislation


I have never BLATANTLY lied I have told you and everyone on here how these images would be regarded IN LAW. I have explained the enhancement procedure and verified that genitalia was not visible though guess I averred that no skin could be seen by stating ALL WE SAW WAS FOAM.

showing bare skin is not an offence.

Why dont you just accept that in a legal sense nothing will be done about these images and from the perspective of the IWF these are of no interest to them as they are not OBSCENE or OFFENSIVE

Now that is laughable since I do not have a patrol route...apart from patrolling the internet lol

If highlighting your lack of knowledge in UK legislation can be inferred as bitter then I accept you comment that this was SUPPOSEDLY a BITTER attack in much the same vein as the pictures you showed us all as being OBSCENE (tongue in cheek)

I am not ashamed of defending the legal stance of the UK on obscene materials I am a servant of the laws binding this country and will uphold that role to the best of my ability.

How can my actions of exposing someone as a fraud be shameful. You profess that the law in the UK might be interested in these images but are blatantly struggling to disprove the fact that the law in this country would not recognise these pictures as obscene.


that is because you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE of your precise actions except to infer that the authorities might regard this as violating the law in the UK which I do not intend to cover again as this has been dealt with too many times in this section and quite frankly I am bored with having to repeat myself.

Since you thrive on definitions here is the definition of diatribe

diatribe
noun
1. An abusive, bitter denunciation.
2. A prolonged discourse.
3. A speech or writing which bitterly denounces something.

allwords.com/word-diatribe.html

or maybe this one
]1archaic : a prolonged discourse
2: a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3: ironic or satirical criticism

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe

In your case numbers 1 and 3 apply in the first definition and number 2 in the second


Lavinia

Could I consult with you via email regarding the US situation as I am obviously making comparions with other countries legislation on this matter and also getting an overview of the effectiveness of policing this in other countries.

I had got the impression from this site and a number of US sites I have been on that the use of such sources is regarded as legitimate research so long as it is properly referenced etc.

The companies in the UK are required to instruct students that the essays are for reference only, however, legislation in this area is very remiss at present and little if anything is done to punish essay sites in the UK that do not adhere to this policy.

The recent problems with six form students has brought this to the fore and has lead for calls to tighten up legislation to try to punish those who allow students to pass the work off as their own.

This is one avenue I am exploring in my thesis. At present in the UK most univerisites in their prospectuses regard any use of essay writing sites as plagairism and even if reference is made to the essay as source material the usage of such is frowned upon by the schools and universities.


Such as the law on obscenity in the UK does not recognise these as obscene - is that what you mean as verifiable evidence.

And their response was....?????

Let me guess - they are going to do nothing BECAUSE there is nothing they can do BECAUSE the law in the UK does not recognise these images as OBSCENE (point proven)


In the context in which your diatribe was written the insinuation was that authorities referred to those with the power to do something about those images (which in terms of internet publication of obscenities is the IWF) especially when in the same sentence you ask if it violates any laws!!


And you were right to question how I came by this site. I blame google as I typed in the word essay writing sites and came up with several and then typed in the names of specific ones which led to the forum, obviously because there have been complaints about these sites on here.

This is part of what my thesis is concentrating on and yes they did fail due to plagarism.

After 30 years service I will only be 58 having joined the service when I was 28. I could retire but I would be bored within a week. Besides I am always on the search for knowledge and it has always been an ambition of mine to do a doctorate.

I wouldn't normally post on a forum but was just astonished by the claims made by WB that I was compelled to respond and point out the law on obscene publications on the net especially given that this is a speciality of mine. I figured someone should set the record straight and who better than someone who is dealing with this stuff on a daily basis.

quote=WritersBeware]
Your assumptions--and continued misrepresentations--are laughable.[/quote]
So which AGENCIES are you suggesting would be remotely interested in 'bath man' (tongue in cheek)


Oh and by the way you did question whether it violates any British laws and you did refer to the AUTHORITIES in the UK not agencies.

I think you have your answer as to the above NO THEY DO NOT VIOLATE ANY LAWS IN THE UK

Is that clear enough for you

Greg it is acceptable to write your thesis on any topic you fancy. there is no requirement in the prospectus that states that you must be working in a particular field in order to write on the topic.

the topic may seem pointless to you however it does not seem pointless to the number of sixth form students that failed their courses last year for using essays written by essay mills and submitting them as their own work.


this is only YOUR opinion WB it certainly is not the opinion of the legislation on obscenity in the UK. No matter how you frill it up the police or cps are powerless to bring charges against images that do not fit with the definition of obscenity as proscribed by legislation. Maybe you should petition parliament for a change in the law to cover the images YOU find offensive etc.

You have not proven that the picture shows the man's genitals at all. The enhanced images clearly DO NOT show his genitalia as stated several times. I only wish I were entitled to post the enhanced images to prove the point but this of course is not allowed. If a prosecution were impending (which it is not) then these images would have to be disclosed as damaging to the prosecution as they do not show what we would be suggesting they did show.


I was not dealing with internet promotion I was dealing with the involvement of the agencies that you stated would be interested in this material. In the UK the 2 agencies quoted are responsible for examining allegedly offensive material and then making a decision as to whether the claims are well founded and whether a successful prosecution would ensue. These images do not even come close to sufficient for a prosecution or fit the definition of offensive as mentioned god knows how many times now.

My how strange that NEWLY registered Greg comes onto the forum and immediately jumps to the defence of Writers beware and then challenges everything that I have written about.

Yes Cambridge do part time courses for phd's especially if the person is paying for their own course. In actual fact a phd can be spread over 5 years and as contact with the supervisor is only required once every 6 months then you could theoretically class every phd student as part time.

Of course the proposal was written and approved and the professor I am working with has welcomed the research as there has been a lot of controversy about Oxford university students working for the essay writing companies.

I chose not to do about online ch pr0n as quite frankly I like to escape this when I return home from work at night.

As for the time I spend on the internet my working day starts at 6am and finishes at 2pm so thereafter I am free to spend my time as I wish.

As I am writing my thesis that of course involves browsing the web. I have plenty of subjects for my research thanks and having been using information from here to delve into the various different companies to establish their policies on the selling of essays and what efforts they take to try to prevent students submitting the work as their own.

I am sorry you find it worrying that people in my role have a sense of humour, but it is impossible to take WB seriously when she becomes offended by a picture of a man in the bath. when you deal with the stuff we see everyday you need a lighter moment such as this to lift the mood.

incidentally I did my LLB and LLM before starting working for the police and also had my son before joining the police. I was intending to go to law school after doing my degrees but became pregnant and shelved that idea only to return to work once my son started school.

There are 2 agencies in the UK that deal with obscene images on the internet the IWF and the police in the guise of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (which is where I work). I have direct contact with the IWF on a daily basis and ANY new reports of ANY site supposedly displaying OBSCENE images would come through them to MY OFFICE. I have just finished an 8 hour shift and surprise, surprise there is no report to investigate.


This has absolutely nothing to do with parents agreeing or disagreeing. The fact remains that EVEN if someone did report this site there is nothing that would be done about this because

a) The images have to meet the criteria required by LEGISLATION as defined in the CHARGING STANDARDS for CPS in order for ANY action to be taken against the site

b) The images when ENHANCED do not show GENITALIA and where not posted with the aim of causing ALARM or DISTRESS to those viewing them (As required by legislation) Do I need to scan the relevant information from the Police National Database in order to demonstrate what would be required before charges could be brought.


Well sorry but they did lol My Inspector thought it was hilarious that you would consider these to be obscene. He thinks you must have led a very sheltered life if you find the image of a man in a bath filled with foam offensive lol


This is not a venomous attack (I have read many of your postings on here and think you are the King/Queen of venomous attacks). Your postings on this issue ARE utter nonsense as you obviously did not do your research as to whether any of the agencies that are involved with policing this kind of material would be interested and I have proven categorically that they would not even bat an eyelid.

The comments I have made are not PERSONAL attacks on you but attacks on your assertions apart from the comment about you being filled with your own self importance (which others seem to agree with)

I actually did not refer to myself as a 'Law student' I said I was doing a phd in law on a PART TIME basis. I am actually a full time police sergeant for the Met (which I can certainly prove and which you obviously accept that I can prove as I did ask if you would like my FIN number as proof of my rank etc and you did not respond)

You are still attempting to divert this from the real issue that you haven't contacted anyone and that nothing would be done if you did.

I can produce chapter and verse on police procedure in this area which would bore the pants off anyone reading. You keep stating that posters on here do not post proof I have repeatedly posted the proof that no such reports have been made, where is your proof that you have reported it?

Now who is misquoting. I did not say that you said it was child pr0n. Child pr0n is not children looking at pr0n but children depicted in pr0n images. What I errantly said is that you were suggesting the images were pr0nographic which obviously they are not and neither are they obscene.

I can assure you that I have viewed both images and there is certainly no genatalia of any kind visible. I did not say that you could not see skin I said you could not see the man's genatalia. That was the point in issue.

This was at the supervisor's instructions and is not petty business as you put it. If after all your assertion was correct this was supposed to be an OBSCENE image. We are entitled to use the equipment in this way as this is how we discover obscenities in the first place. Glad to see you are now admitting that it is PETTY though.

I am doing my Phd through Cambridge university and have no asociation with any essay company at all. I am doing my thesis on the legality of essay sites in the light of recent UK controvery over sixth form students using essay writing services and submitting the work as their own (which incidently is how I came to find this site)

As far as my definition of corrupt goes when I stated that these images do not DEPRAVE or CORRUPT that is following the guidelines laid down by the CHARGING STANDARDS from CPS which is how all prosecutions are determined in the UK. If you had viewed the images I have had to view in my job you would know exactly what CORRUPT is.

I never said I was a barrister - please read properly- I am a sergeant for the Metropolitan police in London working specifically in the line of internet pr0nography. Would you like my collar number so that you can verify I am a police officer?

I have no connection with essaybay and had frankly never heard of them until I started researching essay writing companies for my thesis.

Whenever did I attack you with venom. I merely pointed out that the power you claim to have with regard to your actions against these OBSCENE images was utter hogwash (a point which you haven't been able to challenge).

Stop trying to divert the argument away from the truth which is that

1. You HAVEN'T contacted anyone
2. No one would take you SERIOUSLY even if you decided to
3. The images are not OBSCENE
4. You were hoping to score points off Essaybay by AVERRING to the fact that you SUPPOSEDLY could take LEGAL action against the company

I have no commitment to anyone at all WB!

I have never used the services of an essay writing company and am never likely to either as I am totally confident in my own abilities!

I am not MERELY a student I am a police sergeant of 5 years standing and am doing a phd as a part time student to further my career when I finish my 30 years service with the police.

You hide behind the statement of not disclosing which agencies you have spoken to as you haven't spoken to anyone.

I have no axe to grind with anyone here and merely posted to highlight the ridiculousness of your assertion that agencies in the UK would be concerned by these images. I have named the agencies involved with the control of obscene publications in the UK neither of which have received any such complaints and neither of which would be interested even if you did complain as these images do not meet the criteria as required by the charging standards in respect of any obscenity.

I fail to see why pointing out the law with regard to obscene publications in the uk translates as supporting essaybay. My aim was to expose the nonsense that you are posting in this forum that agencies in the uk would take action against these images.

I admit to averting to the fact that you were suggesting that these were pr0n, that was an error on my part but it still does not alter the fact that these are never going to be regarded as obscene.

WB you seem to be full of your own self importance and like everyone to think you have the power to do certain things. On this particular occasion I have been able to successfully demonstrate how little power you have in this quest which is why you are attempting to turn this into me displaying support for essaybay.

I have absolutely no reason to support anyone. Why don't you just admit the truth that you haven't contacted anyone in respect of this and that you are unlikely to as you know full well that the information I have posted is correct and the agencies would tell you exactly the same.

The facts are as follows

The IWF and the police in the UK are not in the slightest interested in the assertion that these pictures are obscene (especially given that they have now been removed)

UK law legislates to prosecute internet sites that display images regarded as obscene. Obscenity is viewed as material that will deprave or corrupt.

These photos do not show what you claim they show. To prove the point my inspector asked our forensics department to enhance the image in the lab and surprise surprise all we could see was foam. The equipment in the lab is so sophisticated that if the pictures showed what you claim they show it would have been clear in the enhanced images. I wont bore everyone here with the processes that the forensic department go through to enhance the images but I am sure you have seen forensically enhanced images before that are taken from CCTV footage and stills to help trace criminals. It is amazing how clear things can be enhanced with a bit of technology.

Anyway I have made my point quite succinctly and I think everyone on here has got the message concerning these images and the likelihood of police or CPS interest in them ie NONE.

So just who have you contacted then writers beware as you certainly haven't contacted the IWF or the police as internet crime is dealt with through one central office not regional offices and as I work at the central office I would have heard of this.

I can 100% back up all of the information I have stated based on the fact that I deal directly with this area of crime.

I am not associated with any essay company whatsoever and found this site since I enrolled on a part time course at university doing my Phd in law.

And before people start offering me assistance in writing my research project don't bother as I am already well into my paper and am managing just fine. The struggling bit is the money side although I am still employed by the police so have a regular income to enjoy, the Phd has cost me rather more than anticipated.

Essaybay I was pleased to be of assistance as this was getting rather silly with talk of obscene images that make a mockery of the images I deal with daily.

I am totally against obscenity as you would expect but there really does have to be a line drawn between an image that might cause amusement and an image that would turn your stomach.

WB of course children need protecting but not from seeing a picture of a man in a bath something that they are likely to see any day of the week should they run into the bathroom to use the toilet whilst dad's taking a bath (my kids have done that more than once much to my husband's embarassment- and they never batted an eyelid just used the loo then left :)

WB it appears to me that you are using those images to try to score points off Jennifer just because she dared to use this site to advertise her company. Yes that was naughty of her but it is ridiculous of you to think that anyone in any position of authority would listen to your rantings about pr0n when it is quite clear these images are not offensive.

I spend my days trawling the internet for offensive material to protect all persons from the harm it causes but especially children as they are defenceless.

At least the comments of WB raised a laugh in the office when they accessed the images to see if they were offensive. WB don't waste your time with this you are flogging a dead horse

These are not even SLIGHTLY obscene, believe me I deal with obscene material every day of my working life.

My inspector is directly responsible for preparing charges for obscene material and presenting it to the CPS for charging advice. There is no way that there is any realistic prospect of a prosecution under any obscenity laws in the UK and my Inspector has said categorically that he would not even consider approaching the CPS as he knows full well that they would never advise a charge on such an image.

As pointed out by another poster on here the site is designed for university students which makes them an adult audience. The fact that others can access the site is immaterial as children can access adult pr0n sites if they lie about the date of birth etc. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that they check the sites their children are accessing and to take steps to prevent this. If they choose to allow their children to browse the net without any parental control there is very little that can be done to stop them accessing illegal sites.

The IWF mentioned above is in the process of clamping down on child pr0nography sites and hardcore adult pr0n sites as these are far more damaging then a picture of a man in the bath. Frankly you are wasting your time getting a petition organised etc especially given that the images have now been deleted. Even if they were still on there the law does not legislate for this kind of material and would not impose any penalty on the website unless the images were grossly obscene. Even then most sites with grossly obscene material are still in operation as it is impossible to legislate against websites in this manner as a lot of the pr0n sites originate from America, Germany, Holland and Portugal and are not governed by UK legislation so cannot be prevented from publishing by UK authorities.

The IWF is attempting to organise worldwide collaberation so that each country will take action to close down such sites that originate from their country, however, given the high demand from adult surfers of the net for such material it is unlikely that a complete clampdown will ever be achieved.

I dont know which agencies you have supposedly spoken to but as a member of the police force and having dealt with internet pr0n cases I can tell you that the police would not be remotely interested in these images. They are not pr0nographic in any way shape or form. If the image had shown him in the bath with a child they would most certainly have been interested but it is an accepted fact that those who use the internet often frequent adult pr0n sites etc. Whilst ISP providers give account holders the opportunity to ban certain sites so that their children do not get to view such material many parents do not exercise such control and therefore the children can be subjected to all kinds of objectionable material. It is impossible to police such activity and so therefore legislation concentrates on banning child pr0nography ie images containing children, or grossly offensive material ie depictions of violence or sado masochistic activities.

The image you are harping on about is just a man in a bath, Admittedly there is an innuendo that the bubbles could be hiding something but it is clearly meant as a FUN shot and is unlikely to cause anyone ALARM or DISTRESS which are the required elements for an image to attract police attention.

The police powers in respect of such images is limited to obscene publications as defined by the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Obscene is defined in the Act as

Obscene Publications Act 1959

The aim of the image is not to DEPRAVE or CORRUPT and would therefore be of no interest to the police authorities.

In my time working for the police in this area I have seen images that would make you physically sick such is the depravity. I told my Inspector to check out the images you suggested where offensive and he just laughed and said that if we were to pursue every person who submitted an image of themselves in the bath in a suggestive pose we would never have any time to stop the REAL offenders.

I would be interested to know who Writersbeware has supposedly spoken to who is SO interested in these images as I specifically work alongside the Internet Watch Foundation in my role with the police and can assert with authority that no one has attempted to contact the foundation alleging the images are obscene etc.